White House Could Use AT&T/Time Warner Deal As 'Leverage' Against CNN (arstechnica.com) 302
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: AT&T seems to be on track to close its purchase of Time Warner Inc., but President Donald Trump's hatred of Time Warner property CNN could still be a "wild card" in the deal. Trump's feud with CNN was described yesterday in a New York Times article titled "The Network Against the Leader of the Free World." Within that article is one tidbit that could affect AT&T's proposed $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner, which owns CNN and other media properties such as HBO and Turner Broadcasting System: "White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN's parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump's Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president's animus toward CNN remains a wild card."
Separately, The Daily Caller wrote today that Trump doesn't want the merger to be approved unless CNN President Jeff Zucker is fired. The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." Zucker told the New York Times that the pending merger has not affected his journalistic or management decisions.
Separately, The Daily Caller wrote today that Trump doesn't want the merger to be approved unless CNN President Jeff Zucker is fired. The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." Zucker told the New York Times that the pending merger has not affected his journalistic or management decisions.
s/Trump/Obama/g (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
As in "(fill in the blank) refused to take questions from (insert media outlet here) at his latest press conference"?
That would be interesting. Dates and times for extra credit.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. I think that's the same for both though as I recall.
[John]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:s/Trump/Obama/g (Score:5, Informative)
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't think he ever did anything remotely similar to this, (allegedly) threatening to kill a merger unless a news network stops criticizing him. The most he ever did was threaten to exclude Fox from the press pool at an event (and then backed down).
Re:s/Trump/Obama/g (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI: You're living in a reality distortion field. You should turn that off.
Obama didn't fire Wagoneer, he asked him to resign and Wagoneer agreed. And the motivation for the request was GM's request for a multi-billion dollar bailout; the resignation wasn't a condition of receiving the bailout, but IMO it would have been perfectly reasonable if it were. If a CEO has to beg the government to save his company, he's clearly failed.
What was your dipshit Obama suckup point again?
Sigh. This is the sad state of what passes for political discussion in the US. One can't state facts that show one side in a bad light without being accused of being partisan for the other side. I didn't care for Obama and I'm glad he's not the the White House any more. That said, I'd gladly trade Trump for just about anybody, Obama included.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama didn't fire Wagoneer, he asked him to resign and Wagoneer agreed.
That's probably the dumbest sentence you've written all week. At the CxO level, no one gets fired.......they are asked to resign. It's the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama didn't fire Wagoneer, he asked him to resign and Wagoneer agreed.
That's probably the dumbest sentence you've written all week. At the CxO level, no one gets fired.......they are asked to resign. It's the same thing.
It's the same thing when the board asks, because the board could fire the CEO if the request were refused. But the president has no authority to fire employees of private companies, so it truly was just a request.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trump wants CEO of CNN fired.
Obama FIRED the CEO of GM, Rich Wagoneer.
What was your dipshit Obama suckup point again?
That Obama actually DID what you are complaining that Trump says should be done and you were fine with it?
Not even close to being an apt comparison.
... General Motors [wikipedia.org] was financially vulnerable before the automotive industry crisis of 2008-2009. In 2005 the company posted a loss of US$10.6 billion. In 2006, its attempts to obtain U.S. government financing to support its pension liabilities and also to form commercial alliances with Nissan and Renault failed. For fiscal year 2007, GM's losses for the year were US$38.7 billion, and sales for the following year dropped by 45%. On November 7, 2008 General Motors rep
Re: (Score:2)
I still think it's hilarious that FoxNews refused to refer to Obama as "President". Most (if not all) reporting during his first term called him "Mr. Obama".
Re: (Score:2)
I still think it's hilarious that FoxNews refused to refer to Obama as "President". Most (if not all) reporting during his first term called him "Mr. Obama".
Then you don't remember very well. Other media outlets stood up for Fox. Fox returned the favor recently under the new administration.
Whether you think that's because they have integrity or they just fear being locked out by the next guy is up to you.
The "Mr. Obama" stuff was done on day 1, sure. But it was a direct response to the "Mr. Bush" stuff that was prevalent for 8 years. It's a rejection of the President. I don't recall this being a big thing during Clinton's reign. Perhaps the media was more
Re:s/Trump/Obama/g (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
If Obama had threatened regulatory action against Fox unless Fox News ditched Roger Ailes or some pundit then it would rightfully be a major political scandal.
I don't think it would quite reach the level of impeachment, but it would easily have been the worst thing Obama did as a President.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
How many news networks did he try to silence?
Did (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can say the same of CNN, WaPo, NYT, WSJ. just saying. If the shoe fits buy the other one..
LOL, wut? You retarded, mate?
AN established institution of news, decades, some over a century, versus right-wing positive agenda driven rags?
You made me laugh my ass off with your utter retardation. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Your fallacy is that of an appeal to authority. Being "an established institution" doesn't mean anything.
All of the listed media groups have shown themselves to be absolutely unethical and without any shred of journalistic integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Your fallacy is that of an appeal to authority.
Yours is a complete dismissal of history due to cherry picked instances.
The analogy is so banal. While the teacher was turned, someone shouted out, when no one would say who, they all got punished.
Hyperbolic? Sure, but so is your logic.
Either they have they been lying their entire institutional lives or everyone is so stupid, including you, that we just allow it to persist, for decades, centuries even? ok.
Re:s/Trump/Obama/g (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit.
Leaking confidential information? That's all sorts of illegal. You sign an nda then you ignore it?
That's not free press. That's being illegal.
Notice wiki leaks isn't on trial here? They're closer to a press \ media info.
1: Leaking confidential information, or information protected by an NDA, is not illegal if you're exposing a crime. If you put it to a sane jury who was informed of their right of nullification, the vast majority of such instances would be quickly decided in favor of the defendant. We are to be judged by a jury of our peers, not a single judge sitting at the bench. Not a military tribunal. Not some corporation's stooge in the form of "arbitration". Further, leaking information is never illegal - no on
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders? [nyu.edu]
"A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results. "
What if it were a motorcycle vs a pine tree? The staged results of our staged event to make a senseless "point" supporting our narrative and bias may SHOCK you!
Too many mergers (Score:3, Interesting)
While I am against the AT&T/Time-Warner merger (and was also against the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger), I think this goes too far. The Press is part of the checks and balances of the government. There have been lots of bad press against all former Presidents, but the President didn't use his powers against them like this. This blatantly violates the First Amendment.https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/07/06/2255213/white-house-could-use-atttime-warner-deal-as-leverage-against-cnn#
Re: (Score:3)
"The Press is part of the checks and balances of the government. "
Not so much any more, and that's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has actually been good for the press. Starting with Reagan, the press has been mostly subservient to the White House. Even more so since the Iraq War, since in order to be "embedded", you had to be in the Administration's good graces.
By declaring war on those who report him in less than flattering terms, Trump has re-kindled the role of the press as critic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
unless you are trying to stifle free speech by using the merger.
Re: (Score:2)
However, as far as I know, there has been no actual communications from the Executive branch on this merger recently outs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-gun people usually do split the hairs of the 2nd amendment in exactly that same way: the amendment guarantees an individual right to do a kind of activity (have and use a weapon or printing press), it doesn't enshrine any specific institution ("the press" or "the militia").
That said, the freedom of the press being an individual right doesn't say anything against people exercising that freedom being an important part of keeping our government in check, so it was kind of a non-sequitur on DeplorableCodeMo
Re: (Score:2)
"The Fourth Estate (or fourth power) is a segment of society that wields an indirect but significant influence on society even though it is not a formally recognized part of the political system.[1] The most commonly recognized part of the fourth estate is the news media, or press." https://en.wi [wikipedia.org]
Bad News (Score:5, Funny)
Since the overturn of Citizens United, I'm really worried about corporations' well-being. AT&T only has a market cap of $222.95 billion, and little 'ol Time Warner is only worth $78.66 billion. How are they going to look out for their own interests in the same way that a real life citizen making $40k/year would?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are expecting me to defend Trump, you will be disappointed. Nevertheless, on the list of things I worry about him doing, bullying a ~$200 billion company is pretty far down my list. Did you notice that yesterday he flew bombers across the South China sea, just like Obama? Or that he has now sailed two warships past Chinese-claims in the same area, just like Obama? Did you notice that he has invaded parts of Syria? I'm not saying you haven't, but the choice to focus on CNN-Trump garbage is nonsense, a
Re: (Score:2)
Your conflation of people's freedoms and companies' freedoms is worrying to me. This is the thought process that brought us Citizen's United. I'm asking you to take a step back and see that the whole stack is rotten, not just this one incident (that by the way is not yet an incident, just a theoretical thing that might maybe happen, like nuclear war). I think Sanders was an economical retard, but I would have voted for him in the hopes of getting an Amendment banning corporate and union money from politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Your conflation of people's freedoms and companies' freedoms is worrying to me.
And the acceptance of the erosion of your rights, as they will indeed filter down to us, is mind numbing.
As for "corporations are not people" you need to read more.
They are now considered so via Citizen's United.
Try to understand that the world you think you live in is not the one that is reality, and that thinking this has a non-plussed affect on anyone other than a corporate entity is just hyperbolic ignorance.
Perception is not reality. Reality is reality.
Re: (Score:2)
They are now considered so via Citizen's United.
Thus my comment about the Sanders amendment?
Perception is not reality. Reality is reality.
Thus my support for the Sanders amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't force the population to vote for a terrible candidate. Money won't flip a gerrymandered Republican congressional district. But there is no denying that corporate megabucks made a huge impact on both of those races.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that assertion is that the megabucks (corporate and private) were almost all on the losing side.
By pretty much every measure the Dems spent more money that Republicans (direct campaign spending, national level Party spending, Super PACs, etc..) and failed to hold or get control in every federal category (House, Senate and President).
During the Presidential campaign they even had huge corporate donations in kind by most of the media which ran anti-Trump stories almost 24/7 after it because c
Re: (Score:2)
Elections are a binary result, but the underlying data is not. To find a correlation, you do not compare a win/loss category to money spent - rather you would compare polling data (e.g. turnout, number of votes for/against). In every analysis I've seen, money does have an impact. Repeating myself, it is absurd to expect money alone to flip a super-gerrymandered Republican district. Money did make the race closer than it would have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Elections are a binary result, but the underlying data is not. To find a correlation, you do not compare a win/loss category to money spent - rather you would compare polling data (e.g. turnout, number of votes for/against). In every analysis I've seen, money does have an impact. Repeating myself, it is absurd to expect money alone to flip a super-gerrymandered Republican district. Money did make the race closer than it would have been.
The elections are win/lose. And that's all that matters to the people spending money. They don't care that they made the race closer. They care about whether or not they have influence over the person that won. They seek to maximize influence and minimize spending
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but you are changing the goal posts on me here, unless you want to claim that there aren't close elections where the winning side had the monetary advantage. Senate races, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Made up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it's CNN or any other news organization, does it bother others when you read shit like this;
"The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking."
I AM conservative and I call bullshit on printing hearsay like this. Come on media, print what he says, not what others think he his thinking is like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on media, print what he says, not what others think he his thinking is like.
Perhaps if he stopped whining about talk show's being mean to him and continually lying about winning the popular vote, printing what he says would be worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think the source is credible, then don't believe the report -- it's as simple as that. There's no need for fascism.
Fair point regarding fascism, however isn't the job of journalists to report facts that have been checked and corroborated, and to refrain from "reporting" while they follow leads until they lead to facts or otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
The job of journalists are to report the news, and ensure that it is as well documented as possible. This is well documented, it gives you all you need to either believe it of not.
Re: (Score:2)
The job of journalists are to report the news, and ensure that it is as well documented as possible. This is well documented, it gives you all you need to either believe it of not.
I don't think so.
"As well documented as possible" leaves way to wide an margin. If something cannot be documented, then "no documentation" *is* "as well documented as possible".
"To report the news" means there is... well... news. Not rumor nor speculation nor some unknown source with unknown motives and uncertain access.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when applying your own bias to your selection of 'everything' and your own definition of 'true'.
Most of the 'leaked' stories are about internal disagreements and how person A is forcing person B out of power and how person B will soon be gone. The following week the A and B are reversed. Even stories like this one rarely have a follow up so there is no way to judge the veracity of the original claim. And then there's the insider leaks that are directly contradicted a day or two later.
Lately anonymou
Friend of a friend (Score:2)
The basis of article is an anonymous source. I can't belive anything an unknown source say in these times of 'fake news'. I need solid facts.
Balance (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand, Trump is a bit of a cry-bully and CNN can say anything they want.
On the other, when an "unnamed source" says that Trump said something mean to someone in the oval office and CNN covers it for five hours straight, you tend to wonder what the hell is going on. There's some crazy deal going on with Qatar that's just a *bit* more important, why aren't they covering that more?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other, when an "unnamed source" says that Trump said something mean to someone in the oval office and CNN covers it for five hours straight, you tend to wonder what the hell is going on. There's some crazy deal going on with Qatar that's just a *bit* more important, why aren't they covering that more?
Narcissism.
Re: (Score:2)
The same conservatives who complain about CNN's shenanigans have ignored similar crap from Fox News.
Cable news in general is crap: their MO is to get the audience frothed up so that they come back for more froth. That's how they can sell more ad eyeballs. They all should be spanked.
Re: (Score:2)
The same conservatives who complain about CNN's shenanigans have ignored similar crap from Fox News.
Exactly how many people are you going to throw under the bus defending CNN?
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly when CNN is the focus, you guys are all like "but what about FOX?"
Spare us your fake claims that you arent defending CNN. You are.
Only IF this happens... (Score:2)
Sure, Trump may have groused to several of the people who he works with--but for this to be made a condition of the sale would open a huge legal can of worms.
Which is why I would take a wait and see attitude here. My guess is it won't happen: the Trump Administration won't meddle with the inner workings of CNN as a condition of the sale.
On the flip side, if the Trump Administration does do this, pop some popcorn and watch the feathers fly! Because this would guarantee that the anti-trust regulations and the
does not bode well (Score:2)
If that happens... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that happens, this "person" who happens to be in the oval office will be committing an act of personal vengeance using the power of his office.
That is UNACCEPTABLE. It is unethical and economically disastrous.
What kind of business environment would we be fostering if companies could not rely on being treated fairly under the law?
There is no need for me to answer your rhetorical question because anyone who has read 20th-century history can answer that question. Easily.
The answer is facile and fascinating, but I won't give any hints. . .
Re: (Score:2)
I dont see how that is facile tho, nor is it really fascinating.
If businesses were treated fairly under the law, there wouldnt be nearly as much lobbying. New industries in America pay what is literally the highest tax rate in the world, and they continue to do so until they lobby federal and local governments for the same tax breaks and tax
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abuse of Power (Score:4, Informative)
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it.
Which, in the case of this administration, would have lead to you dismissing a lot of accurate news reports. Anonymous sources should be treated with caution yes, but not immediate dismissal.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true.
Which is why CNN only reported on the existence of the dossier, they didn't break it.
Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions?
Because there's nothing to retract, it hasn't been falsified. Of course the explosive claims are hard to falsify, which is one of the reasons CNN, despite having access to the dossier, deliberately held back the actual contents (until Buzzfeed broke them, an act most media organizations disagreed with).
Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
CNN published one legitimately inaccurate story, and fired everyone involved.
Can you imagine if Breitbart or even Fox News was held to that standard? Would Sean Spicer even last through a single press conference?
Re: Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fallacy. Being (ethically) corrupt isn't a zero-sum pool. They can both be horrible at the same time. It's still an abuse of power even if you're doing it to someone reprehensible. Also: criticizing one for their actions is not an implicit endorsement of the other party.
Re: (Score:2)
Their words dont match their actions. They never have in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
You dont have to look further than his current and past open abuse of power to believe this one is probably true
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If this was a liberal administration (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't be applauding. The executive branch shouldn't be using it's powers to extort favorable coverage or to carry out the president's personal vendettas.
Now here's an interesting question. Name a liberal president who would consider doing such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Has Trump done that or is it speculation from "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking"? The sad thing is, now the well is poisoned. Even if the merger was blocked for legitimate reasons this will be thrown out as the excuse regardless of reality. Should AT&T and Time-Warner be able to merge? Other similar mergers were blocked before without much complaint.
Too much 'could', 'maybe', and 'might' makes this entire opinion piece pure speculation designed to poised the well so that useful idiots t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll take Obama [youtube.com] for $1000 Alex
BS.
The video takes each clip entirely out of context. That alters Obama appears to be only focusing on.
Each conversation covered other media outlets, except for the last one, where George Stephanopolous kept prompting Obama to say "Fox News", which Obama avoided for the first few attempts.
The fact is, Fox News actually did broadcast anti-Obama pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" – specific phrases – for every talking head to repeat. . . an attempt at making something false believa
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, CNN News actually did broadcast anti-Trump pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" â" specific phrases â" for every talking head to repeat
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is going to bring the Mars to us!
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you're actually asking to be able to ignore national politics again. That's part of what got us into this issue in the first place. You'll have a chance in 2018 to reduce the number of hair-raising news stories about politics with your vote, and in 2020 you'll have a chance
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever loses, we win?
Unnamed Sources, no actions... (Score:2)
Sooo... unnamed sources say "might" and "could" and "maybe" and some person with a persecution complex (who's actually stomping on citizens right to free speech) complains that his multi-100's of billion merger might not work if someone else interferes... maybe?
WTF. This isn't fucking news. Call me when they actually DO something against the merger.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a simple solution to this problem, which maybe both Parties can get behind, don't allow the government to take this power in the first place. In other words, let's not require government approval for people to merge their businesses. Then people aren't as dependent on the goodwill of whoever happens to be in power at the moment. Simple, right?
As for this specific case, the only actual quote in the article from someone with decision-making power was from Dalrahim, “I don’t see this as a ma
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't even trying "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." They aren't even pretending he said any of this. They are straight up mind reading now.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real problem is that, at the bottom of the ontological stack, we don't really have a coherent theory of what government should actually be.
I mean, on the Right it's basically a limited laundry list, more or less corresponding to the enumerated powers in the Constitution (and forgetting the 10th Amendment, prior to the 12th, permitted States to do whatever the hell they wanted, including religious tests to qualify for state office--meaning we'd have 50 little tyrannies instead of one big one). A
Re: (Score:2)
If the merger is not being evaluated with respect to the good of Americans, I'm afraid this, too, might be overlooked by any Trump supporters that have been seduced by the cult of personality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T is trying to merge with TW which is also part of Comcast. As if you didn't have choices before, now they'll have virtually all of the DSL, Cable and Wireless market as well as all the media companies that come along under one big corporation. I thought Ma Bell was split up to prevent these kinds of things.
Ma Bell monopoly was indeed broken up to increase competition and it has taken the Republicans and Corporate Democrats decades of non stop corruption and anti competitive activism to undo the damage of that mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
it has taken the Republicans and Corporate Democrats decades of non stop corruption and anti competitive activism to undo the damage of that mistake.
Notice how even though it was Bill Clinton, you begin with "the Republicans..." and then amazingly qualify the rest as "..and the Corporate Democrats" ... so all Republicans and just some of the Democrats... not all Democrats and just some of the Republicans.
Isnt that weird? Isnt it weird that a Democrats is blaming the Republicans again for what the Democrats signed into law? Isnt that weird?
With any luck the Democrats party will disintegrate in the next 4 years. Only then can the Republican disintegr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AT&T is trying to merge with TW which is also part of Comcast. As if you didn't have choices before, now they'll have virtually all of the DSL, Cable and Wireless market as well as all the media companies that come along under one big corporation. I thought Ma Bell was split up to prevent these kinds of things.
It was.
Fortunately for me, as HOA president, I made sure that every unit (~100) was wired for FiOS, in addition to the existing telephone and cable. Verizon sold off its fiber-optic biz in my area to Frontier. Now we have actual market competition. (I know, it is likely brief.)
As evidence: Just last week, Frontier bumped all 50/50 Mbps clients to 100/100 Mbps. This was with no increase in monthly rates at all. I had anticipated this sort of thing, and opted to buy my home WiFi router –one capabl
Re:The real story here (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
These days, it seems to me that the US is a lost cause. So here's an idea: everyone who voted for either Hillary or Trump should be fucking shot. Those who plead they voted so only because they believe the other to be a bigger evil might be let off with only a thorough spanking.
And some other candidates, like Jill Stein, are even worse.
In most countries, we have a mix of batshit insane parties and ones which are only thoroughly corrupt, promoting shit like ACTA but then backpedaling as soon as there are p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
everyone who voted for either Hillary or Trump should be fucking shot.
Fuck off, pal. I voted for Clinton because she was one of the most qualified candidates in recent memory. This bullshit of equating the two persons is just insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about the emails
I don't give a shit about god damn emails. I'm talking about real policy decisions. Like the complete failure to have any coordinated strategy in response to the Arab Spring.
I challenge you to identify one important decision she made as SS that a Republican or even Gary Johnson likely would NOT have made.
That the problem isn't it? The Clintons (both of them) are basically just Republicans when it comes to economic and foreign policy issues. Being a libertarian, Gary Johnson would probably not sponsor a coup in Honduras. http://america.aljazeera.com/o... [aljazeera.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not so in the US: there's not such thing as a sane party there.
Yeah, the parties are made up of people who advocate shooting others who voted 'wrongly.' In some cases, they only advocate spanking.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the parties are made up of people who advocate shooting others who voted 'wrongly.' In some cases, they only advocate spanking.
Hmm, there is a point in your post: while I obviously named these punishments in jest, I should haven't done so -- there are members of such batshit insane parties who do call for the death penalty for the crime of voting differently than them.
For example, in Poland, a prominent member of our ruling party called for restoring the death penalty specifically for one Donald T., the current president of the European Council, for a variety of crimes such as "diplomatic treason". That party member is Ewa Stankie
Re: (Score:2)
It was indeed a lousy election. The DNC just decided to field only one candidate, one with very well known weakness and known to be highly polarizing, although Bernie went against the plan. The RNC had a lot of ho-hum candidates, many of which I would not have minded being president, along with some real nutcases who stole the show. I can remember back to Nixon running, and I've never seen a more screwed up bizarre election than this last one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So a lot like the right wing press during the Clinton and Obama administrations then...
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a break. CNN has gone way downhill, but it's standard reporting. The problem with it is that they stick in too much fluff reporting and obsessing on the same story over and over. Just stop picking political sides and you'll see that all the stations are equally lousy. CNN and others report on the Russian hacking things because that is what is interesting, and that makes money. The only political bias you have at any station is deciding how to get the most viewers, and that determines which close
Re: (Score:2)